Last Update: 9:30 pm, February 4, 2022
Main Points of the Day
- With difficulties in ensuring the live broadcast of the concluding remarks, the online audience missed approximately 20 minutes of the prosecution’s presentation. The trial was then suspended until 2:30 pm in order to fix technological issues.
- In the afternoon, the prosecution spent two additional hours summarizing their case against the water defenders. They provided an overview of each witness testimony and piece of evidence but made little effort, especially in detail, to show how the witnesses corroborated one another and the expert reports and evidence presented throughout the trial. There was little judicial analysis added to the remarks and instead prosecutors opted to make broad claims (ex. all the witnesses coincide in their testimony of the facts; the defenses’ evidence is manipulated and the interviews of the individuals shown in the videos, are lies, etc). The prosecution concluded by asking that the eight water defenders be convicted on two counts of aggravated arson (one against Inversiones Los Pinares and the other against Santos Hernandez Correa) totaling a range of 6 to 12 years in prison for each count; aggravated damage of a container owned by Inversiones Los Pinares, 3 to 6 years in prison; and unjust deprivation of freedom of Santos Hernandez Correa, 3 to 6 years in prison. If found guilty of all crimes, the water defenders face 18 to 36 years in prison.
- The private accusers representing Inversiones Los Pinares also delivered their remarks, repeating much of what the prosecution argued.
- The defense presented their concluding remarks beginning with attorney Edy Tabora. Tabora used a PowerPoint presentation to outline his arguments. He described the interests that all the witnesses presented by the prosecution, have in the case and its outcome. Almost all are employees of Inversiones Los Pinares and therefore, not impartial or trustworthy. The defense described in detail all the contradictions between the witness testimonies and evidence, for example, the impossibility of protected witness Z2 being present at the scene when Santos Hernandez Correa was allegedly detained. Video evidence shows that the vehicle that Z2 said he was traveling in, had already left the scene at the time of the detention. Another example is how Santos Hernandez said that his cell phones were stolen when allegedly detained but other witnesses said that Hernandez had been calling them during the time he was detained, to ask them to come back and get him. All witnesses contradicted one another when describing the individual who fired a weapon, the type of weapon used and what the person was wearing; and all witnesses said that the community members were carrying different types of weapons or allegedly played different roles in the crimes. None of the video evidence or photographs show that community members were armed. The defense also denounced that the prosecution has done nothing to investigate the individual injured that day despite the fact that the crime against the individual that was shot is more serious than the crimes that the water defenders are being accused of. The defense ended by asking that their clients be absolved. The mining company began their operations in an illegal manner and the community was protesting and carrying out their legitimate right to defend their environment and water.
- After a long day, the case now rests with the judges. They will deliberate until Wednesday and the verdict will be announced on Wednesday, February 9 at 9:00 am in the same courthouse.
- My opinion of the case: The defense did a superior job at constructing legal arguments throughout the trial and a outstanding job at highlight the serious contradictions between the witness testimony, which makes up the majority of the prosecution’s case. The prosecutors failed to clearly demonstrate how each of the eight accused defenders are individually involved in the crimes and what their role entailed in the incident. Too much of the prosecution’s evidence is contradictory and lacked detail to adequately corroborate basic facts. In my non-lawyer opinion (I also have not read the compete legal file), the prosecution did not do a sufficient job at showing their guilt. What is clear is that a violent incident occurred that day but it could have been incited by any number of actors including the mining company and the security guards themselves. The problem with this case is that it’s not a legal case, it’s a political one. The decision to declare the water defenders guilty or not guilty, will be a political one, not a legal one.
The highlighted text reads (rough translation): “P(Question)/How many people in total did you observe the day of the incident? R/At the start, when I arrived, there were a certain number of people around Santos Corea, the people I mentioned with high-calibre weapons, surrounding him and there, more or less, the people involved in the incident. P/The people that were farther away, were you able to identify someone? R/No more than all, maybe the people that they had recruited to be there, but those that were in charge and incited people to do all of that and that did what I mentioned including others, I can’t recall right now.” In another hearing, Reyes said each name of the eight water defenders, whereas in others, he said he couldn’t remember who was involved. Photo by Guapinol Despierta
